Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 44 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 8
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 44
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 | Δ | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | Margin→ 49.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Claude Opus 4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 65.59% | 42.65% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 54.5% | 34.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | 35.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | 31.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | 84.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | 20.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | -21.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | 18.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 43.793% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 22.917% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 76.4% | 75.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1328 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 43.6% | 64.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 59.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 38.6. Claude Opus 4.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.